The debate over the shape and future of the global economy was focused in Monterrey, Mexico from March 14-22. There, the official United Nations-sponsored Financing for Development (FFD) Conference was preceded by an energetic, interesting, productive and very well-organized "NGO Global Forum on Financing the Right to Equitable and Sustainable Development." The Global Forum brought together 2600 persons representing 700 organizations from all the regions of the world and generated an excellent exchange of experience, analysis and proposals on the major themes of the U.N. process: mobilizing domestic resources for development; investment and trade; debt; and systemic issues.

During the last preparatory meeting in January, the official U.N. process had completed a consensus document ("the Monterrey Consensus"), which was not on the table for further discussion during the Mexico meeting. About it, however, NGOs were clear and critical: "The Monterrey Consensus," they wrote, "offers no mechanisms to mobilize new financial resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. For this reason, the organizations participating in the Global Forum on Financing the Right to Equitable and Sustainable Development are NOT part of the Monterrey Consensus."

The context for the meetings themselves provided an interesting illustration. They were held on the grounds of an abandoned steel mill (fundidora) whose buildings have been converted into a museum, a center for the arts and a conference center. The steel foundry had been central to the economy of Monterrey and an important employer before it was closed. The NGO statement presented to the opening plenary session of the official meeting said: "The City of Monterrey has been presented as a success story of globalization, but it is an example of the negative impacts of globalization on people, particularly the high social costs of production by large-scale enterprises. These past days we heard testimonies of children dying of leukemia because of toxic waste in the environment, of sexual exploitation, of profit put ahead of humane working conditions, particularly those workers which served in the Fundidora of Monterrey...The testimonies heard these past days demonstrate the vital need for a profound change in economic policies. An economy governed by human rights and environmental protections is an urgent necessity. The economy must serve society and fulfill and support human potential."

Hopes for a significant and positive outcome with real and measurable commitments to sustainable development had dimmed considerably by the time the official conference convened on March 18. The FFD process had begun as an effort to shift the struggle to overcome poverty in a sustainable way to the more equal playing field of the U.N. Initiated in late 2000 after years of negotiation, the process aimed to bring all stakeholders in the development process to the table - governments (both finance and foreign ministries), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization, NGOs and business. Hearings and preparatory meetings in different corners of the world regularly, if somewhat unevenly, engaged NGOs and the private sector, inviting their input in a variety of ways.

Although the possibility of a substantive result remained alive as the Secretary General's statement, an experts' report known as the Zedillo Report (after the chair of the committee, former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, which drafted it), and the Facilitator's draft were put on the table, expectations diminished as concessions were made repeatedly to ensure high level participation from the U.S. As the document that would ultimately become the Monterrey Consensus began to emerge, people's organizations from around the world began to see their specific ideas and proposals marginalized or weakened -- from currency transaction taxes to cancellation of illegitimate debt, from an enforceable convention on corporate accountability to a reworking of the balance of power in the international financial institutions (IFIs).

Repeated efforts by NGOs and some governments to secure a commitment to even minimal structural improvements in the global economy were rebuffed. Finally, the NGO Forum wrote:

Our Monterrey Declaration is a review of the negative economic, social, environmental, gender and cultural impacts of the current neo-liberal policies. These policies are repeated again in the Monterrey "consensus." We do not approve of the prevailing economic model as prescribed by the World Bank, the IMF and WTO, particularly because of its differentiated negative impacts on women and men, and this message was communicated directly to the IMF and the World Bank during the forum. The current model is not working for sustainable and equitable development. There is little evidence in the Monterrey Consensus of a will to change.

We emerged from the Global Forum with a set of common proposals for an alternative economic model that puts people in the center of development. These are our common critiques, demands and proposals:

The full enjoyment of human rights should be the objective of a new economic model for sustainable development with equity, equality and justice. Human rights, as they are included in the Human Rights Instruments of the UN and the ILO, should be the overarching framework and the objective of these institutions. The World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and national and transnational corporations should be accountable to the UN Commission of Human Rights.

NGO recommendations were presented for each of the major areas considered in the FFD process. Each proposal had been presented repeatedly during the preparatory phase of the conference. The NGO Declaration included the following (slightly edited) demands:

We demand that states maintain autonomy as a precondition for attaining their own development. Moreover economic decision-making should be democratized within countries in such a way that parliaments approve the decisions which are currently taken behind closed doors between ministries of economics and trade, and multilateral financial institutions. The active participation of civil society in these processes must be guaranteed.

We reject conditionality imposed by the multilaterals and donor governments. We demand transparency and democratization in decision-making of the multilaterals, as well as financial transparency and citizen participation in the same. Gender equity, human rights and sustainable development cannot be accomplished within the existing power structures and economic model, nor with the alienation of individuals from other people or the earth.

The mobilization of domestic resources cannot be separated from any of the other themes of the Financing for Development Conference, especially that of debt. The mobilization of financial resources must be carried out in a democratic and participatory manner at local, national, and international levels.

We demand cancellation of the debts of the countries of the South. Given that the co-responsibility for debt lies with the creditors we demand a fair and transparent process of arbitration of the external debt of countries in the South that protects human rights and the environment.

We call for a tax on currency transactions to finance gender sensitive sustainable development that especially benefits indigenous peoples, blacks, women, and children, and which also contributes to the financing of global public goods.

We demand the immediate fulfillment of the commitment of 0.7% of GDP on the part of industrialized countries for ODA [official development aid] in order to obtain the Millennium Development Goals. [In the context of this demand and the fact that the Millennium Development Goals only cut poverty in half, the Bush Administration's commitment at the conference to an ultimate annual increase of $5 billion in U.S. ODA fell far short of the goal and looked exceedingly paltry.]

All forms of conditionality should be eliminated, including tied aid. Food aid should be re-evaluated, as it undermines the productive capacity and food security of countries. We call for the effective participation of civil society in the formulation and implementation of ODA projects.

Foreign investment has not been and will not be a panacea unless investment helps development rather than destroy it. We demand the elimination of speculative activities which enrich a small minority while creating crises for humanity, such as that which the people of Argentina are suffering today. We demand that our countries maintain their own regulatory investment regimes, accepting only those investments which contribute to the development of their peoples and the creation of decent work. Foreign investment must not de-nationalize our economies or destroy the national heritage, and it must operate according to performance requirements. Free trade agreements must make the rights of business accountable to national laws, and respectful of the free movement of people and not only of capital and markets. We demand a universal minimum wage and the respect for universal conventions of the ILO. The investment of public funds should go to social benefit and not to volatile activities like the maquilas which harm people and their environment. It should go to investments in small-scale projects, especially for women and indigenous peoples.
We call for the conservation of biological and genetic resources. We firmly reject the introduction of genetically-modified seeds […]. It is necessary to re-value the prices of primary products and promote the food security of peoples. We urge comprehensive agrarian reforms with access to land and investment in traditional agriculture.

We demand the protection of internal markets and national enterprises[…]. We reject the imposition of products and prices by the multinationals. We demand the immediate lifting of trade and tariff barriers and an end to the dumping of agricultural products on poor countries. We demand the financing of trade-related capacity building, and more fair and equitable trade rules.

With respect to systemic issues, we affirm that the prevailing neo-liberal framework undermines sustainable development, and fails to address the needed reform of the system of global economic governance. Developing countries must have equal voice and vote in standard-setting and economic decision-making processes. These processes should ensure the effective participation of civil society organizations representing diverse sectors and interests, including workers´, women's, indigenous and rural peoples organizations.

Efforts to address recurrent financial crises have been inadequate and ineffective. We call for a new and stable global economic and social system. All stakeholders must commit to putting in place debt workout mechanisms that uphold the following principles: neutral decision-making, protection of debtors´ basic needs, co-responsibility of debtors and creditors, transparency, and civil society participation.
Developing countries must have the right to choose their own capital accounts and exchange rate regimes. Those countries under crisis must re-gain their autonomy to implement macroeconomic policies appropriate for recovery. Furthermore, all countries should have the right to implement policies which de-emphasize export-led development in favor of domestic demand-driven growth, regional integration and cooperation.

We support the call for the adoption and implementation of a UN Convention on Corruption and the transfer of illegally acquired wealth to the countries of origin. Stakeholders must commit to the implementation of progressive taxation systems…
In the middle of this enormous debate hung a question that did not get on the official table: What kind of development are we trying to finance? Many who came to the NGO forum brought wisdom born of rich experience that could have helped answer that question. Jesús, a young Mayan from Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico, for example, brought the story of his community's center for integral development that has created a forward-looking development model combining traditional indigenous knowledge and scientific techniques. Though this grassroots, inexpensive and integrated model ensures that rural peoples benefit from development and is preventing wholesale migration to urban centers already burdened with enormous social and environmental problems, it was, as usual, largely discounted as irrelevant, impractical or inappropriate in the context of a global marketplace.

If we are ever to shape a process of development that is sustainable and just, the wisdom gleaned from the experiences of grassroots communities that survive because of strong social capital and appropriate sustainable technologies must be honored, and communities like that of Jesús, with their wisdom and expertise, must become equal and valued partners for development.